Scientific Method —

Yet another study confirms global warming is human-caused

This time we’re talking about rising ocean temperatures.

One of the ways in which climate scientists evaluate the role of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions in the recent warming of Earth’s climate is to run climate models both with and without human activities. By comparing the results of each to the observed temperature trend, these “fingerprinting” studies can show how much of the temperature record can be explained by natural factors (such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions). This has commonly been applied to trends in atmospheric temperatures (as shown in the 2007 IPCC report), where it’s clear that the observed warming wouldn’t have happened without rising greenhouse gases.

Increasingly reliable records of ocean temperatures have now allowed some of these same researchers to confidently apply the technique to Earth’s seas. This is important because some 90 percent of all the energy trapped by human greenhouse emissions has ended up in the ocean, not the atmosphere. The trend with ocean heat content is clear—it’s rising. The question is whether that rise could be caused by natural variations.

Researchers averaged the results from a number of climate models, and compared that to global temperature records for the upper 700 meters of the ocean from 1960 to 1999. The temperature record is less complete for the deep ocean, and its massive volume and separation from the surface subdues its response to climatic changes. In addition to the global average, they also analyzed each of the major ocean basins (North and South Atlantic, North and South Pacific, North and South Indian) separately.

They found that the anthropogenic “fingerprint” was apparent in the observed temperature record at the 99 percent confidence level. That means the observed warming is beyond the variability seen in model simulations where greenhouse gases are kept constant, but is exactly what the models predict for a world in which humans change the composition of the atmosphere.

That result should hardly be a surprise at this point (though it is important). Perhaps it's more interesting to look at the differences between ocean basins. The Atlantic Ocean is warming considerably faster than the others—especially the North Atlantic, which is warming at about double the global average rate. This behavior, too, was simulated by the models.

This actually isn’t the first study to find an anthropogenic ”fingerprint” in ocean temperatures. However, previous work was limited to individual ocean basins and comparisons with just a couple of climate models. By utilizing multiple global data sets of ocean temperature (in which researchers have carefully accounted for the various measurement methods that have been used) and a larger number of the models that were used for the last IPCC report, this study has generated the strongest analysis to date.

There comes a time when even those who know what they're talking about must sink down to the level of those who are both ignorant and scared. Global Warming (for that is exactly what it is) is real, quantifiable and it's getting worse. Common sense aside (fewer forests, more pollutants in the air/soil/water, etc) are all contributing factors to the same outcome. I can't believe it that almost 40 years after science began to show the truth, people are still acting like 8 year old children who do not understand that mommy and daddy simply don't have the cash to buy that useless toy. Earth will go on, with or without us, and for those silly basic minded people out there who do not know that all current life on earth, only encompasses about 2% of all living creatures that have cumulatively existed on Earth (in other words, 98% has already gone extinct), humans aren't special in the least bit....except that we're the only animals ever to roam on this planted who are stupid enough to cause our own problems, and ignorant enough to pretend like this isn't so.

Man-made climate change. Rrrright. Does this road lead, perhaps, to a carbon-credit trading scheme based on the non-delivery of an intangible? Because that's just another economic bubble. Read history, identify the evil done by the bankers.

No more bubbles. Meet human needs. Indict, try, convict and execute international bankers.

While I do believe that the evidence points to anthropogenic sourced change, I think the title harms this article more than anything. If I wanted to send this to climate change deniers I know, the title alone is reason enough for them to stop reading. Confirms means certain, and with nigh irrefutable proof. This just adds to the evidence that supports the theory.

A title such as "More evidence points towards anthropogenic climate change." may have been better suited.

The title makes it sound like we are responsible for all global warming trends with the sun and the cosmos having zero effect.

...And the article clarifies and removes that perception.

I'm with the other guys, clearly this is going to be a popcorn thread.

Can I get another scientist here? That way we can say:

"Scientists say that statistically, the newer the Ars account, the less likely they are to RTFA. Also:Subscription increases likelihood of RFTA'ing significantly."Right now I can only say "Scientist says..." Sounds so much cooler when you have 2.

(Guys at work and I play this game all the time. It never gets old. Simple pleasures.)

Edit:And that wasn't a knock at you, Alex. Statistical averaging allows for deviations from the mean.

"Confirm" means no such thing, because "nigh irrefutable proof" is not a scientific concept. Science rules out alternatives until only one reasonable explanation remains. The fact that climate deniers don't understand how science confirms its understandings is no reason to concede the ground of language and speak in their terms. This study appears to provide confirmation, as do other studies, of the general trend and theoretical construct..

That IS confirmation in a scientific sense. The demand for something more is unscientific, and part of the game that the deniers and fundamentalists play.

Man-made climate change. Rrrright. Does this road lead, perhaps, to a carbon-credit trading scheme based on the non-delivery of an intangible? Because that's just another economic bubble. Read history, identify the evil done by the bankers.

No more bubbles. Meet human needs. Indict, try, convict and execute international bankers.

Man-made climate change. Rrrright. Does this road lead, perhaps, to a carbon-credit trading scheme based on the non-delivery of an intangible? Because that's just another economic bubble. Read history, identify the evil done by the bankers.

No more bubbles. Meet human needs. Indict, try, convict and execute international bankers.

I agree, let's avoid any bubbles, skip over milquetoast cap and trade and go straight to a carbon tax. It's the most efficient way to leverage market forces to start accounting for this externality. The revenues from the tax can be used to fund R&D into renewables and subsidize buildout of infrastructure for renewable energy, attacking the problem from two angles with one initiative.

I think the title harms this article more than anything... Confirms means certain, and with nigh irrefutable proof.

A lot of science findings go with a 95% confidence interval. That this study went to 99% does show a great degree of mathematical certainty. There's only 1 in 100 chance that their findings have some other explanation!

There comes a time when even those who know what they're talking about must sink down to the level of those who are both ignorant and scared. Global Warming (for that is exactly what it is) is real, quantifiable and it's getting worse. Common sense aside (fewer forests, more pollutants in the air/soil/water, etc) are all contributing factors to the same outcome. I can't believe it that almost 40 years after science began to show the truth, people are still acting like 8 year old children who do not understand that mommy and daddy simply don't have the cash to buy that useless toy. Earth will go on, with or without us, and for those silly basic minded people out there who do not know that all current life on earth, only encompasses about 2% of all living creatures that have cumulatively existed on Earth (in other words, 98% has already gone extinct), humans aren't special in the least bit....except that we're the only animals ever to roam on this planted who are stupid enough to cause our own problems, and ignorant enough to pretend like this isn't so.

who is currently pushing green energy as part of his election campaign.

I don't buy it.

Oh, the horror! So Obama is doing exactly the same thing most leaders of the world are doing? They must all be cashing in on this!

This was a scientific study. I myself haven't read it and can't judge its accuracy, but if you're going to criticize it, please state facts pertaining to the actual study, not some conspiracy theory. In other words, troll harder next time.

So we are responsible for 100% of any and all global warming temperature changes both in the past and going forward? Or only a portion? And if only a portion, what percentage?

The biggest recent thing looking at this question was the 2007 IPCC report, which gathered extensive numbers of previously published scientific studies on the subject and summarized the findings. A more up-to-date collection of studies is here.

Quote:

The title makes it sound like we are responsible for all global warming trends with the sun and the cosmos having zero effect.

humans aren't special in the least bit....except that we're the only animals ever to roam on this planted who are stupid enough to cause our own problems, and ignorant enough to pretend like this isn't so.

Animals "pollute" their environments all the time. Humans are special in that they have the abilities and resources to realize and change that: self reflection, tradition, communication… Animals without these capabilities can not be stupid and ignorant.

who is currently pushing green energy as part of his election campaign.

I don't buy it.

Yay! And so it starts..

It's funny. On one side, the President is a puppet of moneyed interests in the country. The two richest industries in the US are oil and entertainment, one of which is dead-set against global warming, and the other, only interested in piracy. On the other side, the President is pushing an agenda for an industry *that did not exist* until global warming was put on the national agenda by... wait for it... the President!

Love that circular logic. Can you say koo-koo?

To what end, you ask? So that he may bankrupt the nation. And that, apparently, rocks his boat. :S

Dude, give it up. It's happening and we're responsible. What we do about it is debatable, but let's all agree that (a) it is really happening and (b) we are really responsible. We can have an honest discussion about what to do only when everyone accepts points (a) and (b) as fact.

If an entire ice age can end without man even being on the planet, it's likely heating and cooling are not caused by man!

No, it does not. Two assumptions are inherent in the statement and both are critically flawed.

1) Past ice age/warming era not caused by man = present heating not caused by man. One does not preclude the other.2) Past ice age not caused by man was not harmful to man. If an ice age is about to start, we may want to do something about it even if we are not causing it.

The question of global warming is really a question of humanity. Earth will, of course, survive. It doesn't care. It was formed, after all, by accretion of very hot particulates and gasses spinning very quickly. Not habitable environment for any known life about 13 billion years ago. Just because it's been in that state does not mean we would like to return to it again.

No, it's about whether this change in climate will kill people. If not, good. If yes, how many. Can we stop it. Should we stop it. Do we care. You may not care, and that's a perfectly valid stance. But disputing the validity of the science from your armchair is not valid.

An accurate title would be: "Yet another study confirms humans have effect on global warming". But we all know there isn't enough hyperbole in that statement.

First line of the article: "one of the ways in which climate scientists evaluate the role of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions in the recent warming of Earth’s climate is to run climate models both with and without human activities. "

If we graphed these two lines (with and without), we could label the difference between the baseline and the path with human activity. One common phrase used to describe this area is "Global Warming"- which should probably be considered a shorthand descriptor for "global warming which can attributed most directly to the activities of humans and the affect of these action on long-term climate trends". Your argument is that the phrase "Global Warming" is a descriptor of all warming, and that the author used the phrase wrongly with the intention of deceiving and introducing a higher click-through. I contend that it was more likely used because it's a common phrase in the public vernacular to describe AGW. As long as you're willing to contend that your argument is entirely based on pedantry and is every bit as hyperbolic as you accuse the title of being, I say we let Occam's Razor apply and let the good people of Ars decide who they agree with.